https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65448
--- Comment #2 from Michal Malecki <ethouris at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #1) > Which tools? Shouldn't those tools be fixed instead? The problem is that it's very easy to interpret the format that every line matches: <filename>:<line>[:<column>]: <error message> This is generally understood by all tools, and it's a format that can be also easily generated. This is a simple and general rule that can be claimed across the tools and it has been used as an informal standard since always. Anything that doesn't match this format is generally treated as "to be ignored" or simply "not a compiler error message" (for example, an echoed command line from make). These lines starting with "In file included from" do not undergo any stable format definition and are not easy parseable, especially if we regard that the message isn't necessarily in English. > Perhaps this would have been a better way to do it (although I would prefer > the notes after the error, and it could just not say "note:", to be > consistent with what we do for template instantiations), Whatever. I just gave this as an example - at least be it something that matches the above format. > if we could start over again, but now GCC has always behaved like this, So you can imagine how sick and tired some are :D Actually I'm using gcc since about 2.6 version and I cannot recall any tool that understands these "In file included from" messages. > if we change it, it may break other tools. Should there be any - but even if, I think I spoke about "having an option to change the format". I meant command-line option to change the behavior, while leaving the default behavior as is, should that not be clear enough. Just like there's for example a -fmessage-length option. BTW. If I'm not mistaken, there are more cases, when error messages from the compiler may be interesting, but they don't match the error message format and are therefore skipped by the tools.
